About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
SFGTV 313
SFGTV2 61
KPIX (CBS) 20
CSPAN2 6
KOFY 6
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 5
CNNW 2
KTVU (FOX) 2
MSNBCW 2
KICU 1
KSTS (Telemundo) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
WJLA (ABC) 1
WMAR (ABC) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 423
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 424 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. i have almpúu question to the s budget office. we have not received a deficit forecast for the next fiscal year. i think that's probably coming soon. can you just give an update on that because there was a reference before to having a better budget picture. so i'd like to get some specifics on that. >> through the chair, supervisor wiener, kate howard, mayor's budget director. you're right, we haven't issued budget directions or -- we haven't projected a deficit. that will be coming next week. i can say that the outlook has improved since last year, but we still will be projecting significant deficits in the first year and in the second year. for a variety of reasons, including things like, you know, the new san francisco general hospital, changes with federal healthcare reform, funding our capital plan, all those sorts of choices. but it will be -- i will be going out with budget going out with budget instructions with significant departments to make reductions. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. i ask that question because
. on the underlying ordinance as amended, supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: i'd like to divide the file between the children's money andá xue reserve money to vote on the two separately. and then they would presumably be sent to the mayor separately. >> president chiu: okay. why don't we take first the peef money, special education money. let me ask our controller and deputy city attorney, any issues with moving forward in that way? >> john givenner, deputy city attorney. it sounds like supervisor wiener is asking to dup cate the file so there are two separate ordinances, one with -- one with -- one source of funds and one with another source of p&,ñ correct. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has asked to duplicate the file. one of the amendments would include the rainy day reserve in the place of the state revenue loss reserve and the other would be as supervisor kim has suggested. is that correct? >> supervisor wiener: no. the the motion would be to duplicate the file and then to eliminate the state reserve money from one version of the file, and to remove the peef money from the other v
. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has a question for you. >> supervisor wiener: welcome. so one of the things i think i sometimes struggle with in these appeals and i'm sort of seeing it here, is -- and this is an appeal under ceqa, it's not an appeal on the merits of the project. and so i think there are times when appeals -- ceqa appeals come before us, and you sometimes arguments about the merits of the project get mixed in, and that may be because that's the only way for the item to come to us. and whether -- agree or disagree with it but in 1999 the voters gave the policy authority over these kinds of issues to the mta board of directors and took that authority away from the board of supervisors. so i'm hearing, both in the written submissions and also in what you're saying today, rernss references to what's good or bad engineering, what's a better route or a worse route, references to disability access, to fire safety. those are all very legitimate and important policy considerations to weigh and coming up with any plan. but how should we think about this distinction betwe
, supervisor wiener, brought this legislation without open community meetings and consulting who is affected and the residents and the nudists themselves in an open forum. instead supervisor wiener you treat local business groups as they're a plenary and that doesn't seem right to me. san francisco and growth and respect for innovation and the only city founded by prospectors. we have been a welcome home for sexual minorities for 150 years. censoring the bodies of these people would run against the course of the history and have damage to the area. i ask to you vote against the proposal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi supervisor wiener and elsbernd and carmen chu. i oppose this legislation. you can't have it both ways where you say you want nudity at the fairs and the parades and the festivals, but and you don't want nudity in the castro. i have supported you on a lot of things, but i feel that this is a war on gay men. the republicans have put a war on women throughout this election, and now you're putting a war on gay men in the castro, and i think this legislation is
. supervisor mar, present. supervisor olague, present. supervisor wiener, present. mr. president, you have a quorum. >> president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the united states of america to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> president chiu: colleagues, we have october 16, 2012 board meeting minutes. could i have a motion to approve. motion by supervisor campos, suggested by supervisor chu. those are approved. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> clerk calvillo: there are no communications. >> president chiu: could you read the consent agenda. >> clerk calvillo: items 1 through 12 are considered routine. if a member would like to discuss an item it shall be removed and considered separately. >> president chiu: would anyone like to sever any of these items? roll call vote on items 1 through 12. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, a
, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, absent. there are 10 ayes. >> president chiu: those ordinances are finally passed, motions approved. madam clerk -- colleagues, if it's okay -- supervisor kim just arrived. if you could call item 13. >> clerk calvillo: an ordinance appropriating approximately 2.7 million of state reserves for the san francisco unified school district for fiscal year 2012-13. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. we're working on drafting additional amendments to this ordinance so could we continue this to a later portion of this meeting? >> president chiu: without objection, we will continue it to later in the meeting. why don't we call item 14. >> clerk calvillo: an ordinance amending the police code to prohibit nudity on public streets, sidewalks, street medians and public rights of way, and stops except as permitted in parades and festivals. >> president chiu: d
them at all. it is a cultural thing, yes, but i fully opposed to mr. wiener's bill. strongly suggest that it would be nixed in committee over here and pardon my stutter and i will be a nudist as long as possible and as far as the exhibitionism is concerned i don't think it's that. i want to go to jane warner plaza and sit on the chairs there and read my book and talk to people, have some water and all that stuff. i don't go up and approach people and all that stuff, and yet i have been harassed at times. once a guy -- i was looking for shade and a guy came out of his shop and really harassed me very, very verbally. okay. thank you very much. >> thank you very much sir. next speaker. >> good morning. i am ralph and i live with my wife in woodside. i am here to ask you to vote no on this ban on nudity and i don't go to jane warner plaza myself but i support those that do. there is no property damage. there is no logical argument for the proposed ban and it comes down to one phrase "it's disgusting". i will remind you that beauty and disgust is in the eye of the beholder and what
discussion. this week supervisor wiener and the sfmta board director spoke in favor of the ordinance and supervisor elsbernd suggested keeping the nonprofit sponsors which the original legislation sought to remove. supervisor chu spoke against this amendment and board president chiu and argued in support of it and felt it would be more important for the sustainability program to solve this issue how to deal with the nonprofit uses, and as you know the ssp is proposed pro place them in the coming year, so with that amendment the overall legislation passed unanimously on first reading. also on at the full board was the drilling cap and requirement. this commission considered the ordinance sponsored by supervisor wiener and allow the planning code to define the housing type and cap the units at 375. the ordinance would require the report so the board could later determine if more such units be permitted. it had the interior comment requirement. this commission recommended approval to the board with number of modifications and refinement of the cap and wanted also a rigorous reportin
. president. seems that in the last few months, supervisor wiener and i '( s&tj show on the road. we've had this exchange at different times, not only in these chambers but also beforehm the metropolitan transportation commission. and i#?( mx certainly respect supervisor wiener and his position, and i think that he was correctonnny in saying thate are -- you know that reasonable minds can disagree with this specific matter. but let's just step back a little bit and talk about sort of what we're talking about here. the issue of the free muni for youth pilot project has been somethingyd( :r+rpá this board s been dealing with for more than a year. and at different times, his different actions have been taken by[(%( cnç city agencies , including a resolution that was supported by seven members of this board, urging the san francisco mta to begin a free muni for all youth program, pilot program here in san francisco. the matter went to the mta board the proposal so that it views of some of the people who had voted against the original proposal, and limited the scope to allow for free muni for
. supervisor olague, present. supervisor wiener, present. mr. president, all members are present. >> president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> president chiu: colleagues, we have board meeting minutes from october 9, 2012. approve, motion by supervisor mar, seconded by supervisor campos. those are approved. are there any communications? >> clerk calvillo: there are no communications. >> president chiu: could you read 2 pm special order. >> clerk calvillo: the policy discussion between mayor edwin lee and mrs of the board of supervisors. this week representing two even districts, districts 6 and 10. the mayor may initially address the board for up to five minutes. president will recognize the supervisor who will present their own questions sphp follow upquestions are in order as long as they do not exceed five minutes per supervisor. >> president chiu: wel
. >> president chiu: supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i do understand supervisor wiener's efforts toágu address e concerns from residents and businesses in his district. i look at this issue as a parent. i do have some concerns of nudity around schools and around young children. but i really do appreciate the comments made by many in the audience of san francisco's uniqueness and our diverse culture but especially our respect for personal freedoms. i also have concerns similar to supervisor campos' that this may be an issue that's about one neighborhood, and mostly about one plaza, and i really don't think we need citywide legislation, especially overbroad legislation to deal with an isolated what i would call an isolated community incident. and i think this legislation also, as supervisor olague said, is not good use of our time and i will be voting no on it as well. >> president chiu: is there further discussion? supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you arbitration colleagues, for your comments. i just want to make a few points. first of all -- and some of
chiu: on the motion to amend, supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: i just i -- everything supervisor olague just said. us? >> supervisor olague: yes, with the exception of just a few words. >> supervisor wiener: so then is that on line 6 and line 17 of page 5, the addition of, and other available data? >> supervisor olague: yeah, we wanted1!jpéuz discuss that with- >> supervisor wiener: so it will say based on sponsor's market rate housing proposal and other available data in both locations. >> supervisor olague: yeah. >> supervisor wiener: i appreciate that. >> supervisor olague: it was the upper moderate income housing was the way that -- >> supervisor wiener: thank you. amendment because of the -- most of the amendment is fine. i will not be supporting this because of the deletion of, quote, middle income households, in other words stating that 120 to 150% of ami is middle income households. actually i have to say i find that aspect of the amendment to be pretty extraordinary. and i'm shocked that the amendment's even being offered today. just about a month ago, this b
. to my right is vice chair supervisor cohen, to my left is supervisor scott wiener. we are also joined by supervisor olage >> items acted upon today will appear on the december 11 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. colleagues, we have 7 items on the agenda. i'm going to ask if there is no objection if we could take no. 7 as a courtesy to supervisor olage to hear that item first. are there any objections? miss miller, could you please call item 7. >> item 7 is a resolution to appear the sharp park golf course from the natural area plan. >> thank you, we have supervisor christine that olage >> at this point we are not going to be continuing this and i would ask that we continue it to the call of the chair. >> if there are no comments, let's open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak to this item? we're going to limit this to two minutes per person. >> i'm just wondering what does this do in a couple sentences, the proposal. >> perhaps supervisor olage --. >> i'll just read from the agenda itself. if you'd l
this is a more trivial concern i agree with supervisor wiener, we consider thousands of measures every year and some of them deal with very profound circumstances facing our city. others deal with the potholes. and what's happening on the street corner, and what we're hearing from our parents. us to address those issues large and small and again that is why i will be supporting this measure. >> supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: i'm just going to mention that i receive e-mails all the time with people that are upset that there are homeless people in the neighborhood. i probably get more e-mails protesting that than just about anything and i would be the last person to ever legislate banning homeless people from certain parts of the city. so and so i'm still trying to understand what is so unique and so different about what's happened that we need this now, even though for all these decades that has not been the case. and the second point is i want to be very clear. i don't know that anyone is saying taking care of the little things that happen in a neighb
farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: those ordinances are passed, resolutions adopted and motions approved. madam clerk, could you call items 12 through 14. >> clerk calvillo: item 12 is a motion affirming certification by the planning commission of the final environmental impact report for the california pacific medical center's long range development plan. item 13 a motion reversing the certification. item 14 is a motion directing preparation of findings reversing the certification. >> president chiu: colleagues you may have heard discussions between the city and cpmc have recommenced recently. at this time this is nothing yet to report so i'd like to entertain a motion to continue these items to december 11. >> so moved. >> president chiu: motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor farrell. without objection that shall be the case. madam clerk, why don't we call items 15 and 39. >> clerk calvillo: item 15 an ordinance reducing footage requirements for efficiency building
to come. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. supervisor wiener had some technical amendments on the floor. is there a to that? second by supervisor chu. colleagues, any objection to those amendments? those amendments are included. supervisor elsbernd. >> supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president. before i address supervisor wiener, just to respond to director ramos, who decided to single me out there, you know, as you talk about the need for us to do more with less from the various streams of money, just remind you of your vote earlier today about the less streams of money with mtc money, on you that money that could have gone for entire maintenance issues is no longer going for maintenance issues. as you reminded us what happened within the last 48 hours with the mta system and lack of feeferredeferred maintenance mo. that said to supervisor wiener's ordinance i thank supervisor wiener for his patience with me on this issue. this is something he and i have been discussing now for the last three or four months. i'd like to give explanation for why i stand in a little bit
plan that doesn't cause -- doesn't disrupt the status quo on oak street. >> supervisor wiener: but if the issue here is whether this kind of project is exempt or not, whether it falls into one of the -- or i guess two of the exemptions or not. as opposed to there could be a better plan, or a kind that's not as good. so i just think it's important to focus on whether it falls into one of the exemptions. because if it does, then regardless of our view of what's a better plan, it's exempt or if it's not exempt, then it's not. but i think that's the real key. >> and my colleagues will talk about specifically to that very point. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. >> about the categorical exemptions. >> president chiu: thank you. why don't we continue and continue the clock as well. >> howard shaf ner president speaking to the nuts and bolts that supervisor wiener asked about, first of all, in our briefing i think we've dealt with that quite a bit, and also briefing from our council. but first of all, you can't have categorical exemption when there's cumulative impact with another pro
in this hearing-- by the way i would like to thank supervisor wiener's office for including me and the food truck operators in the conversation. i think he has done an exceptional job in trying to hear and listen to our concerns. if i can use the overhead projector. so when -- so the distance of 50' is not actually 50'. so when you think about, it's from the property line. it's not from the center of a restaurant. and so it's actually closer to 60' of a buffer zone. from our perspective, what that does and the map i'm going to show you here -- so the black is actually the available air area for use. all of the dots are existing restaurants and this by the way, as you can see is a 50' diameter. when you move, when you move to a 60' diameter, you can see it becomes much more concentrated and space becomes much more limited. so i think in terms of what the industry vendors are actually interested in is something much closer to a 33' distance. which looks more li ke a little bit -- it shows a little bit more space than is available, but really it still leaves opportunity for areas. as you ca
supervisor in whose( d district this appeal is occurring. supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. the appellants have withdrawn their appeal so i move to table items 34 through 37. >> supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener has stated that the appeal has been withdrawn and he's making a motion to move forward items 35 and table 36. >> supervisor wiener: one moment. >> supervisor wiener: so, mr. president, my apologies. we would technically then be affirming the tentative parcel map. so i would make a motion, subject to public comment, to move item 35, and to table items 36 and 37, and thereby affirm the grant of the. = tentative parcel map. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener's made a motion as he's described. seconded by supervisor chu. is there any public comment on these items related to this tentative parcel map appeal? seeing none, public comment is closed. on the motion to approve the tentative parcel map and table the remaining items, his can we do that same house same call? without objection the motion passes. why don't we go to 3:30 special commendations. i think our first
the resolution presented by supervisor wiener along the lines outlined in the amendment that has been distributed. so moved. >> second. >> president chiu: supervisor campos has made a motion as described seconded by supervisor olague. on the motion to amend, supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank you, president chiu. i will be supporting this amendment. it makes much sense because i was very concerned that the original resolution overturned probably a year's work, i think longer than a year's work, of the, you know, hundreds of young people who worked, organized across san francisco, to get a policy of free muni for youth, at least for low income youth. i believe that at one point i remember the author of this resolution had discussed well why don't we make it for low income youth and we can support free muni for low income youth and now we have a resolution that pretty much says this should only be used for maintenance. so i'm really happy to support amendments that include, you know, prioritizing free muni for low income youth and maintenance. needed to actually help bring up the next g
me say that i certainly don't take the concerns that have been identified by supervisor wiener lightly. i understand that there are many people who reside in the castro, who reside in district 8, that have, you know, a very serious concerns about what's happening. and the question is not the issue of how serious this is, but simply what the best approach to addressing the situation is. and that's what it has come down to for me. and let me say that the main concern that i have, with respect to this legislation, is an issue of priorities. as a city, in terms of we, as a body, on the board of supervisors, thinking about the legislative actions that are needed and the things that we need to prioritize as a legislative body, for me, i question whether or not this rises to the level that it should be a priority. not that it's not an important issue, but let's just take the example that this legislation passes and there is a nudity ban in the city and county of san francisco. and let's just say that once the ban is in place, you have a number of individuals who defy the ban, andjru÷
, no. supervisor mar, no. supervisor olague, no. supervisor wiener, aye. there are six ayes and five nos. >> president chiu: this ordinance is passed on the first reading. afternoon. welcome back to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, november 20, 2012. can we have order in the chambers please. thank you. madam clerk, let's go to item 33. >> clerk calvillo: item 33, an ordinance amending the administrative code to extend the sunset date of the public utilities revenue bond oversight supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. colleagues, this is an ordinance extending the puc aback to 2016. and i wanted to -- i have circulated previously an amendment to this, a non-substantive amendment ensuring that there is no gap in coverage of the rback between january and the new effective date of this legislation. so i ask that we adopt the amendment and would ask for your support in adopting this ordinance. thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor farrell made a motion to that, seconded by supervisor chu. any objection? without objection the amendment passes. o
, the two sources separately. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: well,given that, again, my goal here was to be able to get the peef money separately to the mayor and get that as quickly as possible in the hands of the school district. if the author of the legislation does not prefer that approach, then what i would do is i would withdraw my motion, and instead ask to divide the question so that it's one file but we vote separately on the peever money and the state reserve money. and again, i don't -- if i were the sponsor of this legislation i probably would want to get the peef money as quickly as possible but i understand the author's perspective. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has withdrawn his initial proposal to duplicate and amend the files and is now proposing that we divide the files. supervisor elsbernd. >> supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i think it's important just to kind of untangle all of this procedural talk and ask the city attorney. so by the sponsor not accepting supervisor wiener's proposal, we can divide. but once we vote it will come as
to be in those area as supervisor wiener said. >> so there would be opening up areas that are off-limits today and taking off other areas that would now become off-limits by the 50' mandatory no-go zone? so there would be something favoring the mobile food operators and there would be some taking away in other areas, right? >> right. >> and we're trying to get a balanced approach. i would like to hear what mr. quon would think, based on his expertise and you will not be held to the wire on this. do you agree with -- what do you think would be the impact as far as accessibility for independent operators to come in and start a business with this new legislation would it dramatically restrict them? because they are going to give us the exaggerated investigator, which is what i would if i were them. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department of public works. what we have found is the loss of unintended consequences was very true in this case. the initial law passed was for mobile truck operators to be able to operate in the city, to bring a diversity of food in a variety of areas. when th
committee. my name is sean elsbernd and today we have scott wiener who is appointed to the committee today and joined shortly by carmen chu. our clerk is mr. evans. i would ask anybody who has a cell phone put it on silent. as you know we have a lot of people here today. we have an over flow room in 250 that has the two big tvs so you observe. i ask after you comment in public comment you move into the board chambers so the other people can file in. you will be able to see everything and would be a smooth transition for everybody. with that mr. clerk will you call item one. >> item one is amending the codes and prohibiting nudity as public streets, sidewalks, parklets, and plazas and on public transit vehicles, stations, platform and stops, except as part of permitted parades, fairs, and festivals. >> thank you mr. clerk. item one is supervisor wiener's option. >> thank you for coming out today. i think it shows there is a lot of passion on all sides of this issue. mr. chairman we have before us legislation restricting public nudity in parts of san francisco. this legislation whic
an partners who work for the city and county of san francisco. i'd like to thank cosponsors, campos and wiener. current city employees who would likemzjpkn to add their spouse r is taken out of their paycheck. federal government views health coverage by same sex spouses and domestidomestic -- to be taxable income. therefore they're taxed more than other city employees simply because their spouse or partners of the same gender. this discrimination in our federal tax code has cost same-sex partners thousands of dollars each year. as of july 28 of this year the latest data we have, the number of city and county of san francisco active members with same-sex domestic partners total over 350. san francisco has always been a leader in supporting our lgbt community and i'm proud to stand with that group. following the example of other municipalities such as cambridge, massachusetts and private employers such as google in the bay area who have shown leadership on this issue and stood with our lgbt community ensure that same sex domestic partners will not be burdened with these taxes anymore this is an
. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are eight ayes and three nos. >> president chiu: motion to amend passes. unless there is further discussion, let's take a roll call vote on the underlying resolution as amended. >> clerk calvillo: on item 25 as amended, supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: the resolution is adopted. item 26. >> clerk calvillo: item 26 is a resolution authorizing the department of environment to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount 400,000 from the u.s. department of environment, environmental protection to support brown fields assessment projects. >> president chiu: same house same call? this resolution is adopted. item 27. >> clerk calvillo: item 27 resolution authorizing the department of emergency management to retroactively accept and expend a fiscal year 2012 program grant in the amou
be likely february 1, 2013. and so i move those amendments. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener's made a motion to amend. is there a second to the motion? seconded by supervisor farrell. any discussion to the motions colleagues? can we take the motion without objection? without objection that shall be the case. further discussion. supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. president. and i want to begin by thanking all the members of the public who are not only here, but also who have been corresponding to all of us on the board of supervisors in the last few weeks about this item. let me say that one of the things that i find disturbing about the discussion debate that has transpired has been the fact that there has been vilification of people on the opposing side. i don't think that some of the characterization of for instance the proponent of this legislation have been fair, and i think that this was one of those issues where reasonable people can disagree. and my hope is that, irrespective of what happens on this vote today, that we can have respectful dialog
for the first time. and if we have an opportunity now because as you said, supervisor wiener, we have a lot of multi-bedroom units that are not being occupied by families. any of us with young adult children know that they're living 3 or 4 to a unit in san francisco to make it affordable. but they're taking units out of supply for families because there's 3 or 4 unrelated adults living in an apartment. if we can move some of that into units like this and if this experiment works and they are attractive and people will occupy them, i think that will reduce some of the burden we have on existing multi-family homes and new multi-family apartments, multi-unit, multi-bedroom apartments. that will be developed in the future. so, it is an experiment worth pursuing and we urge the board to adopt it. and i would also like to congratulate supervisor mar on a tremendous victory in his reelection. >> thank you. >>> i, too, would like to thank and congratulate supervisor mar. and i would like to thank supervisor wiener for working on this kind of legislation. the biggest concerns that were expressed in
to thank supervisor wiener and the folks that have worked on this item. i have to say that this, for me, has not been a clear-cut issue. there has been a lot of different thoughts that i've had about this piecen+jau;Ñ of legi. i agree with supervisor wiener, that we do need to provide different alternatives and different types of housing as we're facing the -- continue to face the issue of san francisco no longer being an affordable place for so many san franciscans. i had the opportunity to visit with my staff. one of the microunits as they're called, and the units that i visited were actually a little bit larger than what's being proposed here, over 200 square feet. and one of the things that struck me is the fact that even though they do maximum the use of the space, that you're still talking about very small units units that we saw, you were talking about these units potentially being rented at $1500 a month, which is not a lot of space for $1500. so that kind of goes to the crux of my concern, which is, as we're building these microunits, are we, in a way, creating or exacerbating
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 424 (some duplicates have been removed)